About your Search

20121112
20121120
STATION
MSNBCW 4
CSPAN 3
CSPAN2 2
FBC 2
MSNBC 2
LANGUAGE
English 13
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
of the line of the conservative era that began coherently with ronald reagan in 1980. mitt romney was the ultimate remainderman. that's why they have an easier time of dumping on him right now. >> so the clown car has backed up to run over mitt romney. that's your image for tonight, howard. >> yes, it is. >> that woman who didn't like her husband, she drove over the guy in the parking lot a few years back then drove back over him again. i don't want to get involved in that legal case, but i do remember the pictures. let's go to john here. is this the clown cars as howard beautifully put it backing up over the guy that outdorked them and won the election even though he's no more or less dorky than they were? your thoughts. >> some of these people are not certifiable clowns who are saying these things about romney. i don't disagree with howard's characterization in general, i do think it's fair to say that part of romney's problem was that he was really always an incredibly bad fit with the republican party at almost every level. he was not most of the things the republican party is
's daughter, understood conservatism or ronald reagan, the alcoholic son that grew up in middle america who actually believed, like i believe, like a lot of conservatives believe that if you want to help everybody, if you want to help the 100%, what you want to do is you want to fight hard for their individual free am do doms and unshackle them from regulations from high taxes, from a centralized state, and that's the best way to move forward. we can have a debate over whether that's right or wrong. the problem is, we didn't have that debate this time because mitt romney's view was such an insulated view of a guy who grew up rich and grew up in this insular world where his father ran car companies and was governor of michigan. >> this is a pivot point for the republican party. i think bobby jindal probably said it best. you have to turn -- you have to marry conservatism and pop y lyh populism. we helped the little guy because that's the america dream. it's not the opposite as far as entitlements and victims. that's a pivot point. and the republicans that get it are going to be part of a new
a brother, i don't envy him the position he is in. but i am also reminded of what ronald reagan taught us years ago, good polic makes good politics, john boehner needs to emphasis economic growth, is the way to get increed revenue. and there is two ways to -- two imperatives, dress down reduce, and discipline our government run among so there is confidence to grow in private sector then a tax system that accommodates that growth. you will dress a tax system of this country, from theoint of view of what is fair, have you taken the most simple minded way to address taxes. taxes are about raising the necessary revenue to fund the minimum, i i effective governmet that does interfere with growth of private sector, to to so in such a way as to encourage the maximum growth of the private sector is where you get maximum revenue. neil: we're at this cliff, possibility, republicans are under pressure, president said, i'm not budging, -- he left open some details, but he certainly want toss raise taxes on the rich. i guess they can decide whether they will resurrect old rate or closing loophole, how
's going on at and the party splitting again. they always quote ronald reagan, but he said not to speak ill of another republican. we keep forgetting that. we're not using a new technology. romney, i think there was prejudice in the party against his mormonism. i think a lot of evangelists stood back as they did when john mccain ran. we were 3 million votes down. i would like to hear what the other republicans have to say about that. i think bobby jindal is going down the wrong route in jumping on romney now. we had fractional primaries and that took a lot of steam out of romney and set us up for the democratic assaults. host: in georgia now, charles. caller: calling from cleveland, georgia. i believe the republican party pass to get back to the constitution. these undeclared wars have to stop. we threw away the ron paul supporters. we needed them to defeat obama. romney did not mention the constitution many times -excuse- me, i'm nervous. we have to go back to the constitution. if the republicans don't go by the constitution, they are no better than the democrats. host: plenty more time fo
intellect or exercise in ideology. i covered ronald reagan for six years. and if you want to discuss it some more, i can tell what you i learned in those six years of covering the presidency. it with a lot different than than what i thought it was going to be. it became clear to me that to a large degree, it is a test of the president's will and purpose. to believe in a few big things, to stand steady against the swirl of political controversy, opinion, nowadays, that's certainly not true for the presidents in this book. polls, advice from counselors, all kinds of things that would drive a president away from his core convictions to not necessarily do what he believed in or what he really believed to be best for the country. this is a book about character, about 16 presidents from george washington to george w. bush who all in a moment of national crisis did what they in their hearts believe was the right thing for the country, who showed character. not necessarily what turned out to be right. think there's some decisions they made that i don't know i agree with. and you can certainly argue
. in the last 100 years, only four, right. so eisenhower, fdr, ronald reagan and barack obama. i think the idea that barack obama does not have a historic mandate when 44 men have been president and seven did what he did in two terms, he got 69 million votes the first time, 62 million votes the second time, i think he has a mandate. the things to be done that are great in this election happened to fall on the progressive side, in part because the republican party and conservatism has gone so far right things that used to be centrist, like environmentalism, which was a teddy roosevelt thing which even richard nixon was in favor of. >> john mccain. >> newt gingrich. >> these things have been now reclassed as liberal, right. the victories that the president has a chance to get which are historic, like on climate change, on immigration, are now progressive ideas because they've been left behind. >> it's now almost up to the republican party to grab a piece of that pie to say this is our victory too when in reality if they had done it earlier -- >> let's don't get in debate about the mandate. you ma
-- you can thank ronald reagan and margaret thatcher for doing it. host: this morning, jodie writes in on twitter, the b.p. disaster was made by bip it. there were safety regulars that were ignored. they know what they were doing before it blew up. we'll go to chad now from farmington, new mexico on the republican line. chad, thanks for calling. caller: yeah, thanks for having me. love what you guys have going on. sorry to say but i am a republican. i just had a question, since they already gave you the projected numbers for what they plan on spending everything on, does that show that they just don't plan on giving anybody, any people that were actually affected any money at all? host: what do you mean by that? caller: like, since they already gave the projected numbers of how much money they're spending on each individual group that they gave money to, do they plan on those groups giving the money to the people that actually were affected by it? host: i'll point you back to the "new york times" graphic on this. b.p. has set aside $42 billion to cover the cost related to the spill.
of the money here, but to be the big problems have been the trade agreements, starting with ronald reagan, the outsourcing of our jobs. there are a lot of people trying to live and $10 an hour while they are getting social security, medicare, taking out of their money, and then they are told by people like paul ryan and mitt romney that that is an entitlement. to me, that is like more of a ponzi scheme if they take that away. getting back to the elephant in the room, until we start talking about structurally change in this country beyond fighting over taxes -- you can fight over moving around the chairs on the titanic, but what really needs to be done is we need to repeal the trade agreement, look at taxing goods from china, and we need to get jobs back into this country, manufacturing jobs with wages people can live on and pressure for wages to go up. right now, the pressure is for wages to go down. you are fighting over what is less of the money coming in. host: let's go to the congressman. guest: this is an important issue that was fought over in the campaign. we need to support manufa
examples of presidents who solved big problems by finding common ground with the other side. ronald reagan did it with a democratic-led house after a far more resounding second-term victory than president obama's, as did bill clinton, with a republican-controlled house and a republican-controlled senate after a more resounding second-term victory than president obama. both examples -- both of them -- illustrate the rare opportunity that divided government presents. president obama can follow suit or he can take the extremist view that both reagan and clinton rejected, by thumbing his nose at the other side and insisting that if republicans aren't willing to do things his way, he won't do anything at all. now, if the president's serious, he'll follow the leads of president reagan and clinton. if he's really serious, he'll put the campaign rhetoric aside, propose a realistic solution that can pass a republican-controlled house and a divided senate, and work to get it done. and if the president acts in this spirit, i have no doubt he'll have the support of his own party and a willing partner
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)